- Jan 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Feb 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–28
- Mar 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Apr 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30
- May 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–31
- Jun 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–30
- Jul 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Aug 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–31
- Sep 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
- Oct 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Nov 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- Dec 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Re: Floyd Patterson, RIP
Posted by on 5.13.06 @ 10:26PM
Paul: Though I don't know that we've ever talked about him, somehow I sensed you with your perfect command of the fight game would find time to pay tribute to Floyd Patterson, whom I remember from before you were born. In fact, the gentlemanly Patterson was a perfect complement to many classy sportsmen of the time, whether it was Frank Gifford or Jerry West or Elgin Baylor or Oscar Robertson or Sandy Koufax. He was the first heavyweight champion I remember, one one automatically took to -- which is why the pummeling Ingemar Johansson gave him was horrible to watch (I saw the worst of it on a newsreel at the Airport Drive-In Theater in Goleta, California, where my parents often took my sister and me to a night at the movies inside our '50 Studebaker), just as his glorious KO of Johansson in their rematch was one of the great moments of my early sporting life, proof positive that good guys could prevail.
Alas, I never understood those later two first round knockouts at the hands of Sonny Liston -- who even more inexplicably would be done in similar fashion in his second fight against Muhammad Ali, having lasted no more than six rounds in their first fight. Speaking of Ali, of course, it was his beastial treatment of Patterson in their infamous showdown of 1965 that would forever tell us all we needed to know about the man who no longer wanted to be Cassius Marcellus Clay, Jr.
The Rap On Rap
Posted by on 5.13.06 @ 6:51PM
Clive Davis graces the Times with a timely confession of worse-than-worthless contemporary hip-hop. [Hat tip, Mr. Sullivan.] Davis inspires further acts of "bravery": after the Academy Awards I wrote an essay on this topic so unforgiving and final that it remained unpublished -- until now.
Floyd Patterson, RIP
Posted by on 5.13.06 @ 3:02PM
I didn't get a chance yesterday to mark the death of Floyd Patterson, who was heavyweight champion of the world from 1956-1959, and then again from 1960 -1962. He was the first man to regain the title after losing it - which is a lot easier to do today with all the phony title belts floating around, and multiple champions in every division.
He was an incredibly soft-spoken and gentle man, and he carried with him, often right on the surface, a psychic fragility that would have destroyed lesser men. Most fighters are desperate to repress their vulnerability and fear, even though all of them have more of it than they'd like to admit. (Patterson, an expert on such topics, once opined that Muhammad Ali's excessive boasting was mostly an effort to talk himself into confidence.) The press at one point dubbed Patterson Freudian Floyd, and he became infamous for leaving the arena in disguise after his humiliating defeats to Sonny Liston. But he also learned how to use fear to his advantage in the ring and, Liston excepted, face down his adversaries on even terms. He came from the rough streets of Brooklyn's Bedford Stuyvesant neighborhood, where he had a similar early life to Brownsville's Mike Tyson, and they were trained by the same man - Cus D'Amato. But where Tyson progressed all the way to becoming a human beast, Patterson became a sportsman, a gentleman, and a citizen, beloved by his neighbors and fellow parishioners in his adopted hometown of New Paltz, New York.
Patterson may have been the most maligned champion in history. Undersized (he would have been a fabulous light heavyweight), with a very suspect chin, he was knocked down an astonishing 19 times in his career. But as he noted with his usual quiet pride: he got up 17 of those times. That may not have always translated into victory in the ring, but it sure says something about the man.
Friday, May 12, 2006
1776 Redux
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 8:25PM
The musical, that is. One of the first lines is, "I have concluded that one useless man is called a disgrace, two are a law firm and three or more are a Congress." Subtract the good music and humor and we have 2006.
Re: CIA Leaks
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 3:22PM
Are the CIA leakers committing treason? Not quite, but almost, argues Daniel Henninger, most cogently in today's Opinion Journal here. . And Gen. Haynes ought to prosecute, if he gets the chance.
Leaking all Over the News
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 2:07PM
I'll be on Fox News Channel with John Gibson about 5 pm EDT talking about the steady stream of leaks that are so very damaging to our nation. Hope you can catch it.
Re: Best Novel
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 1:00PM
Sorry to spoil the party, guys, but all I can contribute to this discussion is to note that the best novel I've read in recent years is Jane Eyre. After something like that, how can one possibly settle for anything contemporary?
Re: Best Novel
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 12:51PM
Having emerged from two days with Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, I guess I'll have to play catch-up on the novels issue.
If we're violating the 25-year rule, there's absolutely no contest: Flashman at the Charge by George MacDonald Fraser (1973) is simply the best novel I've ever read, of any vintage.
Should we return to the original premise, I've got to nominate Christopher Buckley's The White House Mess (1986). I've given so many copies as gifts I regrettably -- very regrettably -- no longer even own a copy.
Another Gov Who Should Run
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 10:39AM
Yesterday, I opined that Jeb Bush has almost a duty to run for the U.S. Senate from Florida. Now comes word from Wisconsin of another, governor, this time former Gov. Tommy Thompson, who still hasn't ruled out a Senate race. (Mention of the Senate race is well down in the article.) Thompson seems to be more strongly considering a comeback for the governor's mansion, but really, he will do his party more good -- and better serve his presidential ambitions by getting some national exposure and some foreign policy/defense policy experience -- by taking on Sen. Herb Kohl in a race no other Wisconsin Republican could win. I've always been a huge fan of Thompson's; he was one of the best governors, of any state, ever. No debate allowed on that: The man successfully pushed vouchers; he provided the model of welfare reform for the whole nation; he cut taxes; and on and on; he did just a great, great job, which is why he kept getting re-elected. I will have even more respect for him if he takes on a tough Senate race rather than try to elbow a legitimate GOP candidate out of the governor's race that the other GOPer already has done so much work on. And while Kohl is a more reasonable Dem than many others on the Hill, and pretty popular in Wisconsin, he's NOT unbeatable. A good, clean, positive campaign against him, with no smear jobs either way, could become the race of the year for pundits to watch. Run (for the Senate), Tommy, run!
Re: Novels
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 10:30AM
Paul, we could pull Webb into the 25-year window with The Emperor's General, certainly his most philosophical exercise.
Of course, the whole idea of a "best" in novels is ridiculous. So many fabulous novels have simply disappeared: The aforementioned Edwin Mullhouse, Paul Rogers' A Child of the Century, Frederick Boechner's four novels about Leo Bebb, Real Money by Louis P. Jones, The Dolly, Dolly Spy by Adam Diment, any of which I'd gladly read again, right now.
If you ever want a depressing experience, look over the publisher's lists for the upcoming year. Book publishing has always been PC, but it's now totally rotten.
Anti-Harry Reid
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 9:45AM
DonkeyCons is going after Harry Reid. See for yourself.
Vin Weber
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 9:15AM
Who'd have thunk that Vin Weber, one of the great stalwarts of the conservative movement, would sell his soul and get into bed with MoveOn.org and other left-wing groups to regulate the Internet?
We hear that he's taking upwards of $300,000 each from the likes of Google, Yahoo, Amazon.com, eBay, Microsoft and others -- all of which rarely give a dime, and then only grudingly, to Republicans -- to shill for legislation on the Hill that would regulate the Internet. Not only is he pressing for Internet regulation, but Weber apparently is now supportive of knocking down child-security filters and allowing porn to be transmitted over cell phones and with virtually no parental controls on at-home computers.
The legislation Weber is backing would enable all of that, and yet the Chrisitian Coalition has now apparently joined him in his fight. Just how big a check did Reverend Falwell take from Weber, we wonder?
What's the Big Deal?
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 8:59AM
Every day when a person uses Google, Yahoo, either company's email system, or associated free software, etc., their privacy is "violated" to a larger degree than what the NSA is doing with phone records.
That's a simple reality. Why aren't people upset about Google, which is now one of the largest corporations in the world? And a company, we might add, that is in full cooperation with the ChiComm overlords in Beijing.
This is how powerful Google's software and algorithms are: if you are using their service at a Wi-Fi hotspot, they can actually monitor your location and send you personalized advertising to steer you to services and businesses within a three block radius.
The NSA isn't doing that. And what the NSA is doing is saving lives, unlike Google, which is just making a buck. Perhaps we should be worried about other things beyond the NSA.
Re: Best Novel
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 8:40AM
Larry,
Since we're breaking the 25-year rule, I'd nominate James Webb's Fields of Fire.
Re: Best Novel
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 7:21AM
In the 1970s, the NYTBR, much less political than nowadays, featured, week after week, wonderful novels in their lead review. I read them all (it seems, now); I had a membership in the Mechanics Institute Library of San Francisco, which bought everything. Of that bunch, I best remember "Edwin Mullhouse: The Life and Death of an American Writer, 1943-1954," by Stephen Millhauser.
But wait, that was 30 years ago, not 25. In the years afterward, when I was in the lit game, the common wisdom was that the novel was dead. I came around to Stephen King's view, expressed at the American Book Awards, that the real flame keepers of novel writing are now, and have been for some years, the popular novelists -- not the pretend litterateurs like Toni Morrison, but the real entertainers like King, Clancy, Turow, and such.
So I'll nominate The Shining.
Best Novel of the Last 25 Years?
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 4:26AM
The New York Times asked a pretty distinguished panel that question, and the answer seems identical to what might be returned by Oprah’s Book Club: Toni Morrison’s Beloved. The rest of the list suggests a somewhat rigged game, with Philip Roth placing no less than six novels in the honorable mentions. A feature on the poll results is promised for Sunday’s book review. I haven’t read enough contemporary fiction to be a worthy judge of such things – too much Thomas Pynchon in younger days soured me, I guess. However, I have read Toni Morrison, and I do know that Beloved is not the best novel of this or any other quarter century. My own vote would go to Marilynne Robinson’s On the plus side, Robinson’s earlier classic, Housekeeping, did make the Times poll’s final cut. And Robinson herself was among the panelists. Maybe Sunday’s piece will reveal how they voted.
Golf Notes
Posted by on 5.12.06 @ 4:06AM
Quin, this may be of interest only to you and me. Darren Clarke was called home from a tournament last week to be at his wife Heather's side as she battles cancer via chemotherapy. He's playing this week in The British Masters at The Belfry, not far from his London home, so he can drive back and forth.
Aside from his golf, Clarke is noteworthy for his kicky spiked frosted hairdos, his go-to-hell trousers, and a ruddy, life-affirming face that obviously enjoys the good things -- cigars, fast cars, Guinness.
His appearance, via the Golf Channel, is a shock. His hair is an untended mess, his clothes look slept-in, and his face is ashen and drawn. Things must not be going well in the Clarke household. Astonishingly, he's leading the golf tournament.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Better Late ...
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 4:58PM
Perhaps someone at AmSpec can pull it up, but the Washington Post this morning "breaks" news that we reported on weeks ago: that the DNC, its leader, Howard Dean and the House and Senate Democrats are in a big cat fight over money and strategy.
Why the MSM insists on portraying the troubles of Republicans over the troubles of Democrats is clear cut. But conservatives should be clear: while the GOP infighting is largely over policy, the Democrat fighting is over turf, cash, and a general ineptitude that will not be helpful to them in the fall.
Re: USA Today Adopts Yale's Taliban
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 4:50PM
To be fair to wishy-washy USA Today, the paper also gave space today to Clinton W. Taylor, a frequent contributor to this site and probably the world's leading authority on Yale's Taliban fetish, whose op-ed "Get Hashemi Out of Yale" appears as an opposing view to the pro-Hashemi editorial. Of course, Clint was given only about the space enjoyed by the editorial itself, but isn't that the way the world always works -- a principled conservative view always finding itself badly outnumbered yet somehow triumphant nonetheless?
Hayden Coda
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 4:15PM
We're hearing from multiple sources that the CIA, General Michael Hayden and White House legislative affairs are pulling back on meetings with Senators up on Capitol Hill. Hayden is said by two sources to be calling Senators asking to delay meeting. Hayden has friendly relationships with a number of Senators who serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
This news throws into question whether Hayden will ever get a hearing on a nomination that many consider now dead on arrival up in the Senate. This is in part due to the NSA story today, in part due to more White House ineptitude.
Jeb Should Run
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 3:19PM
Okay, why isn't anybody saying the obvious, which is that Jeb Bush's failure to recruit anybody to run for U.S. Senate from Florida -- even though he has trashed the chances of Rep. Katherine Harris for the same seat -- is a tremendous black eye for Jeb and for President Bush. One would think that with all the power of the presidency and the governorship, Florida Republicans should be able to field a formidable candidate. That they haven't done so is a travesty, and quite simply a failure to fulfill a political responsibility. Right now the only other potential candidate seems to be Rep. Mark Foley, who was going to run several years ago before his father got ill. Jeb should find a way to get Foley to run...or to get Gen. Tommy Franks to run... or to talk Jack Nicklaus into running. ..... Wait a minute; forget all that: Why is there NO clamor for Jeb himself to run? He failed to find an alternative, so why is there no pressure on him to fill the gap? With leadership comes responsibility. Jeb clearly has a chance to win the race; indeed, would probably be considered at least a slight favorite from the minute he enters. If this man ever wants Republicans to consider him for the presidency, he darn well ought to have to deliver a strong Senate candidate in his own home state. His term as governor ends when this year does; so he's totally free to run. And he bleeping well ought to run. Duty calls. Will he shirk it?
Huckabee's Knuckleheaded Move
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 2:25PM
Every so often I see Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee listed as a possible GOP presidential contender for 2008, and I don't know whether to chuckle or to scream out a warning. I worked at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette for 14 months; when I first went there, I thought Huckabee was a white knight. Just 14 months later, I had concluded he was pretty much a jack...er, well, not a jack-rabbit, put it that way. He is incredibly thin-skinned; he has a blind eye for ethical problems because, you see, he's a Baptist minister, and that makes it outrageous even to question his ethics OR even the ethics of those who work for him. Or at least that's his attitude. Of course, what that meant was a whole series of stupid, almost petty, ethics-related imbroglios while I was there, and at one point the governor actually threatened to sue the state's very highly regarded Ethics Commission. It led me, on a TV appearance, to question just how dumb Huck must be: "Imagine the headlines," I said: "Governor versus Ethics, in big bold letters."
What brings these reflections on is the following story, forwarded to me via e-mail:
The Coalition of Journalists for Open Government (CJOG)... is sending a letter to the governor of Arkansas regarding a crackdown on access.Following is a letter... to send to Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee who is the latest public official to use an information-access sanction in retaliation for coverage he doesn't like. In this case, the sanction is aimed not merely at an individual reporter but at an entire newspaper. The Arkansas Times is a weekly newspaper with free distribution. It has the fourth largest circulation of any paper in the state. Its editor, Max Brantley, has some 30 years experience, including 18 at the Arkansas Gazette before joining the Times. The sanction is a modest one -- not sending timely notice of the governor's press conferences and public appearances -- but it is nonetheless a totally inappropriate step toward restrictions on access to information in retaliation for unfavorable coverage, and if it stands may be only a first step that will encourage Gov. Huckabee and perhaps other elected officials to implement other sanctions on information.
The letter said it is "poor public policy for any governor or any public official to inhibit access to public information, directly or indirectly, simply because he or she dislikes a particular messenger. It is ultimately the citizen who is less informed and penalized as a result."
The letter also complained that the governor's website said the Arkansas Times was not a "legitimate" newspaper, despite it having the fourth highest circulation of any paper in the state. The letter also expressed First Amendment concerns.
Okay, back to my own (Quin's) comments: First, the sheer counterproductiveness of Huck's actions are astonishing. There are ways to pick fights with problematic media outlets, but trying to shut them out should be low on the list. This is especially true when the publication is popular and respected; shut out the paper, and you insult its readers. Not smart. The Arkansas Times definitely leans left, but it does so openly, with no subterfuge, and Max Brantley, its editor, is a sharp-witted, fair-minded liberal who is a really good guy. His paper is a weekly, not a daily, but he was still in some sense our competition at the Dem-Gazette, and he was good competition. For Huckabee to try to shut out Brantley and the Times is for him to demonstrate not how unfair the Times is, but how thin-skinned he is. With such an attitude, Huckabee will be made mincemeat by the national media, and his peevishness is not likely to play well, long-term, with the American public.
Which Is It, Harry?
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 1:08PM
Harry Reid is awfully confused why the $100 gas rebate failed. From a Democratic Party fundraising email today:
As gas prices rose to above $3 a gallon last week, President Bush, his Administration officials, and their Senate allies came out in full force to do damage control. They know their jobs and their far-right agenda are at stake this November. In a hasty attempt to appease voters, Senator Frist proposed a $100 rebate financed by changing an accounting loophole that allows the oil and gas industry to pay lower taxes. His own party members balked at the overt pandering to voters, with Senator Conrad of Montana saying, "there're some dumb ideas in this." [Houston Chronicle, 4/29/06] But it was heavy pressure from Big Oil that ultimately drove Senator Frist to retreat from the plan.
It is well established that constituents revolted against the insulting pandering -- Reid had it right the first time. But that doesn't fit his party's narrative (which depends on pandering). All the facts aside, Big Oil did it. Right.
Lewis Now Under the Scope
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 1:04PM
U.S. Attorneys are now investigating House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.).
Of course, liberals seize on it. They seem to live in some fantasy world where the problem is the party at the wheel, and not the fact that an incredibly large government is a corrupting one.
I will presume Lewis innocent until proven guilty. But it is worth noting that this is the same Jerry Lewis who last month tried to scuttle budget reforms and helped load up the emergency appropriations bill. These guys operate on appropriations, not principle. So color me unsurprised when any of them abuses his office and runs afoul of the law.
Government: The Problem and the Solution
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 11:06AM
George Will takes on John McCain's disparagement of First Amendment rights as only George Will can.
The way he describes McCain's contradictory belief that government is inherently corrupt but is the best agent to regulate speech brings to mind the mafia's protection racket. Like the mafia, John McCain strolls up to a shop owner's door, and informs him he is going to have some trouble. But he can avoid that trouble if he just hands over a little here and a little there. In the mafia's case, it is money. In John McCain's case, it is free speech. Then in the form of campaign finance regulation, McCain and his allies provide the protection from the problem they fashioned. But the only one truly protected in any protection racket is the extortionist. Incumbents stay incumbents.
Maybe the White House Needs More Memos
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 10:42AM
I treated the Washington Post story about conservatives souring on Bush with sarcasm this morning (see below), but it appears that the White House doesn't realize it or doesn't care. (My guess is number two.)
The last paragraph gives away the whole cynical game:
Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and GOP leaders are well aware of the problem and are planning a summer offensive to win back conservatives with a mix of policy fights and warnings of how a Democratic Congress would govern. The plan includes votes on tax cuts, a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, new abortion restrictions, and measures to restrain government spending.
This is how it works: they neglect the base until: 1- they kick and scream to high heaven (Harriet Miers), or 2- it's an election year. This year, they're offering tokens (sorry, but that's what the marriage amendment and minor abortion restrictions are) or things long overdue (tax cuts -- and only extensions at that).
These are mere bones to placate the masses while they really foul the situation. To wit, as President Bush travels the country promoting the prescription drug benefit, the biggest enlargement of entitlements since the Great Society, they talk about restraining government spending.
So what does that mean? Finally vetoing one bill? Nice start, but let's get serious. The question remains: will conservatives, a naturally trusting crowd, fall in love again for the months running up to the election, or will they refuse to be fooled again?
Qualifying Wallace
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 10:28AM
(This was just posted on the main page -- reposting here in case you miss it there.)
At least five of the 15 members American Bar Association qualifications review panel who evaluated the legal background of Mississppi's Michael Wallace, a former legal aide to Sen. Trent Lott, were charter members of the American Constitution Society, the liberal knock-off of the Federalist Society.
The panel has garnered attention in the past 36 hours after rating Wallace, nominated to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, as "unqualified."
"This is a guy who is extremely bright and talented as a legal mind," says a former classmate of Wallace's at the University of Virginia Law School. "He clerked for a Supreme Court justice [Rehnquist]. He's served our nation in positions of responsibility and performed well [Wallace was appointed to head the Legal Services Corp. by President Reagan]. This is not a case of the President nominating some ambulance chaser. This is a highly qualified individual."
The only blotch on his record -- if you're a Democrat -- is his service to Senator Lott as special counsel during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.
According to a Republican member of the ABA, the Wallace review is now the big buzz in ABA circles. "You talk to a lot of the Dems, and they say that this was coming, particularly after the Alito and Roberts nominations. Wallace is to them a test case. Can their reviews -- which this White House has never taken seriously -- influence Senate Democrats to fight? This is purely a power play by liberal Dems in the ABA trying to empower [Sen. Patrick] Leahy."
The question now: Will the ABA's move empower and energize Republicans both within the "Gang of 14" as well as on the campaign trail.
USA Today Adopts Yale's Taliban
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 8:08AM
If former Taliban spokesgoon Sayed Hashemi is tossed out of Yale - where he's trying to upgrade into a degree-granting program - he can probably get a job as an editorial writer at USA Today. That's a fair guess based on their editorial today.
The editorial is a gooey morass of liberal psychobabble, decrying America's lousy diplomacy in the western world. It says -- and I'm not making this up -- that allowing Hashemi to stay at Yale is a "...rare opportunity to promote mutual understanding..." that might be "...torpedoed by shortsighted opposition."
The editorial labels the Taliban regime "bizarre" without adding any other facts or adjectives. Terrorist and murderous come to mind as some essentials USA Today omits. It also apologizes for the unapologetic Hashemi, saying some of his widely publicized remarks were "naive."
USA Today should be embarassed. The Taliban were - and are - terrorists with American blood on their hands. Hashemi has never renounced the Taliban, apologized for the help it gave (and may still be giving) to Usama bin Laden or repented in any way.
Why anyone should wish to promote "mutual understanding" between Radical Islamists and America is quite beyond understanding. In this case, it's beyond parody. The Taliban and the evil ideology it and other Radical Islamists follow must be destroyed. Is that simple enough for USA Today to understand? Probably not.
The Da Vinci Code & Its Discontents
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 7:45AM
Oh, that cheeky film poster, asking of us that we "Seek The Truth..."
WaPo Newsflash
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 7:39AM
Who knew? "Bush Suffers Erosion in Conservative Base." Oh, and lefty blogs are angry, the economy's chugging along, and terrorism is still a threat. Major newspapers learn -- and report -- something new every day.
A.M. Rosenthal, RIP
Posted by on 5.11.06 @ 12:33AM
The New York Times has just reported that Abe Rosenthal died yesterday in Manhattan. He was 84. The story won't tell you that he was its last great editor, its last honest liberal and genuine defender of freedom, standards, and intellectual rigor. He's been missed for years. Now he'll be even more greatly missed.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Judicial Watch
Posted by on 5.10.06 @ 6:29PM
Talk about going around the bend. Judicial Watch released the Secret Service visitor logs that it had fought to receive related to the number of visits made to the White House complex by Jack Abramoff.
Turns out Abramoff visited twice. It's important for everyone to remember that while those visits were going on -- all two of them -- Abramoff and his crew of merry influence peddlers were shopping their wares much more often up on Capitol Hill. And they were selling a lot in the offices of Democrats. Two visits to Dems? Hardly.
Now there may be other White House visits, and there may be more to all of this. But the language that Judicial Watch uses to describe the situation is just embarrassing and the kind of overheated, hysterical hype more befitting Howard Dean and MoveOn.org. It identifies the visits as by "convicted felon" Abramoff. Well, he wasn't a felon when he made the visits.
Judicial Watch would do more good if it, say, attempted to get the visitor records and appointment book for, say, Sen. Harry Reid. Who was he having dinner with in Georgetown back in the winter of 2002? And who was he meeting with in his offices in the spring of 2003? In March and twice in May?
And perhaps there are a couple of other Democrat senators Judicial Watch could look into. The folks there might find it more instructive and more illustrative than picking over dry bones at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Fellow Shawn
Posted by on 5.10.06 @ 6:16PM
We would be remiss not to mention the events of last evening when our very own Shawn Macomber was awarded a full-time Journalism Fellowship from the Phillips Foundation. He gave a delightful acceptance speech, which incidentally had the audience rolling with laughter and admiration.
Congratulations, Shawn!
Wallace
Posted by on 5.10.06 @ 4:36PM
Wallace received a poorer rating than Brett Kavanaugh, and for the same reason that Kavanaugh has been suffering through delays: his role in the impeachment proceedings of President Bill Clinton.
The Clintons now exert a remarkable amount of influence, particularly during election cycles. The Democrats feel they can attack these Republican nominees with impunity.
NBC Scams Allen
Posted by on 5.10.06 @ 4:09PM
Some folks may have seen the NBC report last night about members of Congress using private or corporate jets for travel purposes.
The report almost exclusively attacked Republicans, and particularly targeted Sen. George Allen's use of corporate jets. How did NBC arrive at attacking Allen, particularly when Democrats such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin often use corporate facilities for travel?
From what we hear, NBC congressional reporter Lisa Myers picked Allen after she learned that the Senator (who is up for re-election this year) took a corporate jet from Memphis earlier this spring to get back to Washington. In fact, cameras were present at the Memphis airport to film Allen's boarding the plance.
How did Myers know about Allen's travel plans? Because Allen was coming to Washington to attend the Gridiron Dinner.
And who had invited Allen? Why, none other than Myers' boss, Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert.
Allen has begun responding to the emails he's getting from constitutents from the report. It's a reasoned letter, but we expect that the NBC report will become fodder for TV advertising by the Democrats in the fall.
Asinine Bar Association
Posted by on 5.10.06 @ 4:03PM
The ABA, which stands for the Asinine Bar Association, proves once again that it is no more than a left-wing interest group with no integrity. It has now rated Fifth Circuit Judicial nominee Michael Wallace, unanimously, Not Qualified. This looks like a sick joke. Take a look at this man's resume. If he isn't Qualified, then Bart Starr wasn't a quarterback and Ray Charles wasn't a musician. Somehow, somebody has to clip the ABA's wings -- and SOON.
Today on the Hugh Hewitt Show
Posted by on 5.10.06 @ 3:53PM
I've spent the day with Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, a new operation based in Norfolk. There is much to tell.
Before that tale can be told, I'll be subbing for Hugh Hewitt today (6-9 pm on the Salem Radio Network.) Hope you can listen in.
Bense a Bust
Posted by on 5.10.06 @ 2:51PM
Florida House Speaker Allan Bense has announced that he will not challenge Rep. Katherine Harris for the GOP Senate nomination. This virtually assures the GOP of a lost opportunity down in Florida.
Harris is a disaster, but fundraising sources we've talk to, who know Bense's thinking in the matter, say that his decision had less to do with the mess that Harris has made of the race against Sen. Bill Nelson, and more to do with Bense's concerns in general about the state of the Republican Party nationally.
Bense's public statement cites family concerns. But we're hearing that Bense was also concerned about the Republican Party's commitment to pushing him over the top, and then challenging a well-financed and well-rested Nelson. "You got the sense that the RNC thought that Allen would run and that they could leave him alone to fight this out successfully," says one source we talked to earlier today. "Coming into the race this late, he would have needed a lot more help. It wasn't clear given all the other things Republicans are trying to do nationally and in other races that he would have gotten the help he needed."
That the GOP's best hope in Florida of winning that seat couldn't see light at the end of the tunnel makes things very dark indeed.
Toyota, and a loss to the judiciary
Posted by on 5.10.06 @ 1:52PM
Toyota stock is down marginally today, because, along with reporting that 39% profit increase, the company predicted decreased sales in the quarter and year ahead. Also this, from Dow Jones News Service: JUDGE LEAVES 4TH CIRCUIT FOR BOEING JOB Judge J. Michael Luttig, one of the country's most prominent conservative jurists, has resigned from Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., to become senior vice president and general counsel for Boeing. Shares edge higher. Remember Judge Luttig? Prominently mentioned for the SCOTUS? Guess he's taking himself out of the game.
Clinton and RU-486
Posted by on 5.10.06 @ 12:54PM
Immediately after taking office, he aggressively promoted the approval of RU-486 in the U.S., admininstration documents show.
Toyota Price Gouging?
Posted by on 5.10.06 @ 12:51PM
I attended a Business and Media Institute panel this morning on gas prices at the National Press Club. Our own Quin Hillyer moderated.
Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor had pointed and frank comments on just about every topic, but particularly price gouging. In short, either it exists everywhere or it doesn't exist at all. Consumers expect Congress to "do something" when gas prices jump, but say nothing about increases in the prices of T-shirts, cars, or beer at the bar. Why is gas different? It shouldn't be.
Usually the politicians and demagoguges (like Bill O'Reilly) hang their case on the large profits oil companies are seeing lately. A few strong points here: 1- Long term, the oil industry is not a smart buy for investors. Most years are tough, and these "windfall" years are important for the tough years. 2- The profit margins are slim compared to many industries. BP has a 6.8 percent profit margin, while Fox News makes 10.2 percent profit, and other media companies even higher.
But enormously profitable or not, for the government to go after one industry and not others is silly. This brings me back to Jerry Taylor. In his remarks, he said that if price gouging were illegal, the government would have to arrest nearly every realtor in the country. Why? Because they sell houses well above the cost of production at the price that the market will bear.
Speaking of which, Toyota recorded a $3.9 billion profit in the first quarter, we learn today. That's a 39 percent increase over the last quarter. Like the oil companies, that's a business succeeding in a tight market.
Re: New Republic vs. the Left
Posted by on 5.10.06 @ 2:20AM
Quin, this fellow Jonathan Chait may now be alarmed at the wacko left's "paranoid, Manichean worldview brimming with rage," but in many ways he's the Dr. Frankenstein of this operation. Remember his groundbreaking piece back in the Sept. 29, 2003 issue of TNR that began with this sentence (which will forever remain the most memorable thing Chait ever wrote), "I hate President George W. Bush"? And lest you thought he hated only Bush's policies, he added for good measure: "I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him....I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more." Adult liberals have been throwing hissy fits about Bush since at least Florida 2000. Now they're surprised that the kids and punks took them at their word. Sometimes you deserve what you sow.
Tuesday, May 9, 2006
Re: GOP -- Are You In Or Out?
Posted by on 5.9.06 @ 10:07PM
Quin -- all this seems to redound, to me, to the moral-victory benefit of conservatives. On what issue have the Congress and the President failed by doing the conservative thing? I can't think of a one. The victories have been conservative, like tax cuts and John Roberts, and the victories snatched from the jaws of defeat have been conservative, too -- like Harriet Miers. Bush's losing issues -- even on the left -- come courtesy of stances no conservative loves: No Child Left Behind, the guest worker program, Katrina policy, a flotilla of other domestic programs and half-programs. And Congress has gone right along for the ride on them all.
Query then whether a conservative rebellion against the entire GOP leadership agenda, excepting war strategy, is the only way for Republicans to keep Congress and the vitality necessary for '08. Query when the last time such a thing has happened -- and whether we aren't headed for an extraordinary moment in 2008 when the national realignment Rove had been dreaming of turns out to be less about party and more about philosophy. There are more anti-Bush conservatives now, I think, than ever -- paleocons and paleoliberals who share an unadventurous reticence in foreign, as well as moral, policy. You heard it here first that this is the critical swing vote over the next two years...
Re: The New Republic vs. The Left
Posted by on 5.9.06 @ 2:19PM
Quin, Rich Cohen in the Post had a fine column today along similar lines. When he said that Stephen Colbert wasn't funny, the lefty blogosphere turned its vitriol on him. Talk about friendly fire.
Re: ABA's Racket
Posted by on 5.9.06 @ 1:49PM
Dave: That's why a lot of conservative lawyers, myself included, have long since quit the ABA. I refused to pay dues to an organization that was working against what I stand for. Though it may act like one, the ABA isn't a union operating in a closed shop. No conservative lawyer should be a member.
Treasury Rumors
Posted by on 5.9.06 @ 1:29PM
Here we go again. Talk in some quarters of Wall Street is that the White House is looking at Martin Feldstein as the next Treasury Secretary.
This would obvisouly be a coup for the White House, given Feldstein's ties to the Reagan Administration as the President's chief economic adviser.
We still say Josh Bolten was the best man for the job, but in absence of that, Feldstein has the Street Cred and fiscal cred to pass muster.
New Republic vs. the Left
Posted by on 5.9.06 @ 12:09PM
Today, Jonathan Chait of The New Republic offers, in so many words, the same critique of the Lefty blogosphere that I offered in a column here a couple of weeks ago. Chait's best line is his description of the Lefties' outlook: "It's a paranoid, Manichean worldview brimming with humorless rage." Hear, hear!! Meanwhile, in an earlier column about why the crazy Left is wrongheaded for trying to beat Connecticut's U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman in a primary, he offers this other terrific passage: "In the end, though, I can't quite root for Lieberman to lose his primary. What's holding me back is that the anti-Lieberman campaign has come to stand for much more than Lieberman's sins. It's a test of strength for the new breed of left-wing activists who are flexing their muscles within the party. These are exactly the sorts of fanatics who tore the party apart in the late 1960s and early '70s. They think in simple slogans and refuse to tolerate any ideological dissent." Again, hear, hear! HEAR, HEAR!!!!
Terrorists Dejected!!!!
Posted by on 5.9.06 @ 11:52AM
The Captain's Quarters has a HUGELY IMPORTANT report today about captured documents from al-Qaeda-in-Iraq that shows them getting very dejected and contemplating the likelihood that they are losing. The ONLY place they say they are winning is, surprise surprise, in the American media. We have them on the run; now let's finish them off!
Kennedy's Courage
Posted by on 5.9.06 @ 11:35AM
Rhody Dems were praising Patrick Kennedy for his courage last night. Yep, driving into a security barrier takes a lot of guts.
Enough Extensions
Posted by on 5.9.06 @ 11:18AM
Congressional Republicans are set to extend the tax cuts until 2010, and exempt many from the Alternative Minimum Tax for this tax year. Of course, we'll probably have to wait until Republicans have majorities in Congress and the presidency to see permanent tax cuts. Oh, wait...
ABA's Racket
Posted by on 5.9.06 @ 11:15AM
If you had any question about the partisanship of the American Bar Association, note that it downgraded Brett Kavanaugh's rating from "well qualified" to "qualified" once Democrats started saying he lacked courtroom experience. He was twice deemed "well qualified" for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
As Quin Hillyer wrote last week, judicial nominees just don't come more qualified: clerking at the federal district and appeals court levels, as well as at the Supreme Court, Yale Law, the Solicitor General's office, and the independent counsel's office. Of course, we know it's that last job and his current post as White House staff secretary that have the Democrats apoplectic, and the ABA following suit.
Meese on Judges
Posted by on 5.9.06 @ 10:22AM
It is being widely reported today that former Attorney General Ed Meese was among several top conservative outsiders who declined to attend a White House meeting on judges yesterday as a sort of silent protest against the lack of concerted effort to nominate and get confirmed enough good judges. I spoke with Meese yesterday afternoon, and he declined to comment on those reports, or even on whether a meeting had taken place. In fact, he was very circumspect overall -- very, well, judicious.
But here are some of the things he did say -- not that they are particularly ground-breaking, but at least they do show that he, too, is on the case:
All direct quotes:
There are a lot of judgeships pending, there are a number of us who are hoping for rapid action by the Senate on those judges who are already pending, either from the White House or in the committee or on the floor.
The responsibility is in the Senate for accelerated action… before it gets too late in the season.
Before August recess. The more that happens before the Aug recess, the better off we are.
There are a number of vacancies and it is my understanding that the White Hous is working hard on those in time for them to be considere for the Aug recess.
They are all worthy of focus. I don't think it's profitable to kind of single out any one…. I would hope that the minority party would not engage in dilatory tactics.
[HIS ADVICE]: We need a strong coordinated effort between the White House and Senate leadership to move as many judges as quickly as possible.
Ditto what Meese said!
Five Years Ago: Judges
Posted by on 5.9.06 @ 10:17AM
Five years ago today, President G. W. Bush unveiled his first batch of 11 appellate court nominees, which originally was hailed for its (collective) tremendous qualifications, its diversity, and its seeming avoidance of ideological hard edges. He even included two holdover nominees from Bill CLinton, including the semi-controversial Roger Gregory, as a gesture of goodwill to the Dems. Later that month, six more appellate nominees were added to the mix. Around the same time as those six others, though, Sen. Jeffords of Vermont left the GOP, giving control of the Senate to the Dems -- and suddenly, what had seemed like a wonderful start on judges turned into partisan warfare led by liberal Dems intent on smearing any nominee they could. Of those first 11, Miguel Estrada was eventually harrassed into withdrawing, a number of them were harrassed for years before confirmation, and Priscilla Owen was positively abused by the Dems until finally confirmed as one of the few good results of the "Gang of 14" deal last year.
One of them, Terry Boyle, had actually been nominated way back in 1991 by the first President Bush -- and he is STILL waiting for confirmation today. Apparently, he has been subjected to a lot of unfair attacks throughout. I haven't investigated all of the particulars, but you can see the answers to the charges against Boyle here.
Another of the nominees chosen that first month, Charles Pickering, was slandered unmercifully and vilely. He ended up getting a recess appointment for one year, but retired after that year was up rather than submitting to even more calumny.
And as I've reported in detail, the overall "kill" rate for the Dems against good appellate nominees has been alarmingly high.
Well, today, after exactly five years, enough is enough. The excellent Brett Kavanaugh gets a hearing today, and should be confirmed and seated by month's end. But that should be not the end of the fight, but the beginning of the effort to right five years of wrongs. After five years, it's time to stop the foolishness and the smears, invoke the "constitutional option" to kill filibusters against judicial nominees if need be, get a fair up-or-down vote on Boyle, and confirm EVERY nominee who can attract 51 votes in the Senate -- and stop making the nominees twist in the wind.
You Know It's Bad When...
Posted by on 5.9.06 @ 8:25AM
...even the New York Times reports that the Democrats have no ideas.
Kappes Back?
Posted by on 5.9.06 @ 8:21AM
It appears, as Prowler said yesterday, that Stephen Kappes, former CIA deputy director of operations, may return to Langley as deputy director if Gen. Mike Hayden is confirmed as DCI. This will be an (expletive deleted) disaster.
Let us remember that Kappes is not just a symbol of CIA failure, he's been an increasingly important party to it. Kappes was with the CIA from 1981 to 2004. He rose through the CIA bureaucracy during the era of its greatest failures. On his watch, the CIA failed to predict the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the downfall of the Soviet Union, the terrorist attacks beginning in 1986 and up through 9-11. And while he was in very important positions - though we know not his involvement - the CIA created the Wilson/Plame sham scandal and leaked incessantly in the manner political to damage the president and thwart his policy. Kappes is a dedicated part of of the failed CIA bureaucracy that will resume prominence and control under Hayden.
Let's not be fooled by talk of Kappes and Hayden being brought in to transform and fix CIA. It's all part of a turf war that Negroponte wants to fight with Rumsfeld. It's appalling, contrary to our terribly urgent national security need to fix our broken intelligence community.
Monday, May 8, 2006
Moussaoui's Mess
Posted by on 5.8.06 @ 8:50PM
Not sure that Zacarias Moussaoui has actually seen where he will be staying, but we imagine that if he has, that was probably was drove him to think twice about his admissions.
We would imagine that life behind a SuperMax prison's steel doors is far less appealing than the comparative comfort of, say, San Quentin or even Guantanamo Bay.
Moussaoui's Emily Litella Moment
Posted by on 5.8.06 @ 6:17PM
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - Convicted Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui says he lied on the witness stand about being involved in the plot and wants to withdraw his guilty plea because he now believes he can get a fair trial.Sorry, Zac: We've got a little thing called Rule 11-e, and you're not going to like it. Lyle Denniston explains:
In a footnote, the defense lawyers noted that they are aware that a federal criminal procedure rule (Rule 11-e) "prohibits a defendant from withdrawing a guilty plea after imposition of sentence." But, they said, they were filing the motion "given their problematic relationship with Moussaoui, of which the Court is well aware." Moussaoui tried to fire his lawyers several times, and was completely disdainful of them throughout the time they represented him as court-appointed counsel.UPDATE: Motion denied (.pdf).
CIA Rumblings
Posted by on 5.8.06 @ 6:04PM
We're hearing what others are hearing: that almost certainly if Gen. Michael Hayden survives confirmation that his deputy will be former CIA deputy director Stephen Kappes.
Kappes resigned rather than deal with the Porter Goss's deputies, particularly Dusty Foggo, who resigned earlier today.
If not Kappes, then the White House will turn to other longstanding CIA hands who have left recently. You get the picture. Why is Kappes high on the list? His ties to the human intelligence networks the CIA had been building up over the past four years.
BTW: This Foggo story will not be going away any time soon, but Democrats should be very careful where they tread. This one may be the story that turns the public opinion tide on them.
Bubble-vision
Posted by on 5.8.06 @ 4:32PM
Reader Fa'ul bin Qatiq, a.k.a. Paul Kotik, writes that our TV coverage is a little thin:
After all that chatter about the President living in a bubble, I'm surprised TAS is missing the opportunity to, uh, comment upon an actual man living in a bubble. He's been in a transparent bubble filled with water for the last week, on the public plaza at
Lincoln Center, NYC. The lunatic magician David Blaine. UBL's sister and numerous A-List Hollywood celebs have come to worship. Seems the Left admires some people who live in bubbles. It's a huge media event -- buzz is it killed Tom Cruise's opening of MI III here in Manhattan. I'm there -- my diving colleagues trained this kid in breath -hold and are supervising the stunt. Live tonight on an ABC special, 8-10 PM. My notes and pics at www.deeperblue.net.
I know there's some kind of Deep Meaning in this, but haven't the time right now to dope it out.
So when David Blaine doesn't drown tonight, thank a TAS reader.
At Last
Posted by on 5.8.06 @ 4:06PM
Another bird-flu-pandemic skeptic besides our own brilliant Tom Bethell. (Okay, I'm sure there are a few more out there, but they are rare.)
Catholic Censorship Envy?
Posted by on 5.8.06 @ 3:54PM
Over at Volokh Conspiracy, Ilya Somin, George Mason law prof, claims that Catholic cardinals have censorship envy over the Da Vinci Code:
As senior Conspirator Eugene Volokh has warned, one of the dangers of censoring "offensive" speech is "censorship envy." If one group is given the power to suppress speech offensive to it, others are likely to press harder to get the same privilege for themselves. As Eugene points out in the post linked above, many of the European Muslims who sought to suppress the Mohammed cartoons were partly motivated by the fact that many European countries ban Holocaust denial and other anti-Semitic speech.
This dynamic is clearly at work in the efforts of some Catholic leaders to ban the Da Vinci Code. As Cardinal Francis Arinze, one of the chief advocates of banning The Code puts it, "[t]here are some other religions which if you insult their founder they will not be just talking. They will make it painfully clear to you." The Reuters article where this quote appears notes that the Cardinal was referring to Muslim calls for censoring the Mohammed cartoons. He and at least one other cardinal "asserted that other religions would never stand for offences against their beliefs and that Christians should get tough [too]."
The cardinals are arguing that, if Muslims have the right to ban speech offensive to them, so too should Christians. Just as the Muslims previously made the same argument with respect to Jews! The rapid spread of "censorship envy" makes it all the more important to crush this vicious dynamic at its roots - by denying EVERY group the power to censor its critics. It is true that some of these critics are more offensive than others. Certainly, Holocaust denial is far worse than anything in the Da Vinci Code. But "censorship envy" ensures that such distinctions are unlikely to deter the spread of repression once it has begun.
This is what happens when you believe Drudge Report and Reuters headlines. I don't quibble with the "censorship envy" theory, but I think Somin uncritically accepts the Reuters misread of the cardinal. As Rush says, let's go to the tape:
"Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and to forget.... Sometimes it is our duty to do something practical. So it is not I who will tell all Christians what to do but some know legal means which can be taken in order to get the other person to respect the rights of others," Arinze said....
"This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected... Those who blaspheme Christ and get away with it are exploiting the Christian readiness to forgive and to love even those who insult us. There are some other religions which if you insult their founder they will not be just talking. They will make it painfully clear to you."
It looks to me as though Arinze says Christians: 1- Deserve the same respect as all other religions, 2- Should not riot and threaten murder when their religion is not respected, 3- Should take action against blasphemy (very broadly speaking, so this includes a boycott, educating themselves about the truth, telling others about the truth), 4- And, where appropriate, take legal action.
Arinze defers to legal experts around the world. One could infer that that could include censorship. One could also infer by his comments about those other religions that "will make it painfully clear to you" that Christians should respectfully argue their case in the public square rather than censoring offending material. But to say that Cardinal Arinze is advocating censorship is not accurate.
Fund On Target, GOP Out?
Posted by on 5.8.06 @ 2:49PM
John Fund's column this morning at OpinionJournal is right on target: Republicans are at serious risk right now of losing their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, but they may, just perhaps, be saved by the obnoxiousness of the Democrats who would replace them. The American people may have tired of Republican rule in Congress, but that doesn't mean they are eager for rule by the Democrats.
The following paragraph from John, repeating a widely reported story, sets the scene for why the Democrats may yet bail out the GOP:
So far Democrats are offering little should they take control of the House. Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader, told the Washington Post last week, that she planed to launch a series of investigations, starting with the five-year old meetings of the energy task force that was convened by Vice President Dick Cheney and that the Supreme Court has already ruled was within its rights to hold secret meetings. The
Post reported that "Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, 'You never know where it leads to.'" Washington
The more the Dems promise/threaten this kind of stuff, the better. The last thing the American people want is for Congress to be embroiled in more investigations of a partisan nature. One reason Congress is so unpopular right now is that Americans are sick of the petty political games and the bickering about power and process rather than principle. They want Congress to pay attention to them, the people, rather than on scoring points against fellow pols. That's one reason, by the way, why the GOP's overzealousness in 1998 (not just pro-impeachment, which was a duty in the face of perjury and obstruction of justice, but in favor of partisan-tinged rules for the impeachment inquiry that made Gingrich et al look almost as if they were acting out of not duty but bloodlust) was so counterproductive, and why the GOP lost five House seats that year when EVERYbody expected a gain of 15-25 seats: Too much inside baseball, and of a particularly nasty sort, and not enough sober and serious legislating.
So if Pelosi wants to use as a campaign tactic the threat of investigations, she can BRING IT ON. The more she talks like that, the worse the liberal Dems do.
Unfortunately, the House GOP will look only to survive, barely, and not to thrive, even if the Dems adopt such dumb tactics--because all of its mistakes and failures, outlined by John Fund and others for so long, will be difficult to overcome even if the GOP solons get their act together all at once tomorrow and do everything right from here until November. There is so much ground to make up, in terms of public approval, that it will be a long, hard slog no matter what the Dems do.
Babbin on Kudlow
Posted by on 5.8.06 @ 12:13PM
Our very own Jed Babbin will be on Kudlow and Company on CNBC at approximately 5:30 p.m. today to discuss the General Hayden appointment.
Hayden
Posted by on 5.8.06 @ 12:05PM
The Hayden nomination is interesting on a couple of different levels.
First, assuming that Negroponte and the President firmly believe that the CIA should be a "provider of services" to the broader intelligence community, then a Negroponte deputy should do a good job of keeping the CIA blowhards in career middle management in check.
Second, folks seem to forget that if anyone understands CIA culture its new chief of staff Josh Bolten, whose father was a career CIA employee. No doubt Bolten understands what is happening out in Langley better than most in this White House.
Portrait of Patrick
Posted by on 5.8.06 @ 11:35AM
Now that Patches Kennedy is off to the tank to dry up, the media navel gazing is beginning. Howard Kurtz this morning was wondering aloud why the media ignored Kennedy's seemingly endless run-ins and personal problems during his time as both a state legislator and Congressman. Of course, it was because he was a Kennedy. And more important, he was a liberal Democrat. Non MSM entities covered Kennedy, and we didn't need to lower ourselves to the rumor mongering that constantly swirled around Kennedy on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.
Kennedy wasn't just a mediocre Congressman, he was an incompetant, a boob, a Congressman in name only. The only job of significance he undertook was serving as his caucus's chief fundraiser during the early '00s, and he was so bad at it, that then-House Democrat leader Dick Gephardt couldn't remove him because it would only highlight how poorly Democrats were doing under Kennedy's activities.
For several years now, rumors have swirled around Kennedy's offices that he might seek higher office, perhaps joining his father in the Senate. This latest admission by Kennedy should dim those chances for the time being. But rest assured, Kennedy will be coming back to politics, and no doubt he will come back not hopped up on dope or booze, but full of himself: self-congratulatory and unctuously preachy. That he used his "press conference" to announce his rehab stint, remind people that he was bi-polar and criticize the Bush Administration for health care budgeting shows that that he has no intention of leaving the only job he appears qualified for: being a Kennedy.
Hayden's Opponents
Posted by on 5.8.06 @ 9:07AM
The Republican opposition to Gen. Mike Hayden's coming nomination to the top CIA job has picked up the theme the CIA praetorians produced in yesterday's WaPo and NYT. They don't want a military man.
I wonder if they'd be on that theme if the prez was about to nominate Anthony Zinni or one of the other Rumsfeld bashers.
Big Enough for Two Apples
Posted by on 5.8.06 @ 7:01AM
Apple Computer is victorious in the U.K. suit against Apple Corps over the use of the logo for iTunes.
Sunday, May 7, 2006
War Warning Part 5: United Nations SC Plan
Posted by on 5.7.06 @ 11:43PM
War Warning Part 5, United Nations Security Council Plan
1. The UNSC has accepted the IAEA report that Tehran is in flagrant violation of the NPT.
2. Tehran makes it a policy to boast that it is in violation of the NPT and that it will not acknowledge the UNSC authority with regard the NPT. Tehran's policy includes continuing public statements that are aimed to provoke and humiliate the UNSC. Tehran is following the North Korean path exactly. Tehran does not regard the UNSC as a threat.
3. The UNSC is divided into at least three hardened factions: The US is allied with the EU three of UK, France, and the de facto member UNSC of Germany; Russia is a faction; China is a faction. The US led faction wants to move the UNSC as quickly as possible (four to eight weeks) toward Chapter 7 sanctions. Russia does not want to move quickly though it is most decidely against Iran bolting from the NPT or otherwise continuing on a path to acquire a full industrial cycle for both uranium and plutonium warheads: Russia's policy is driven by Gazprom politics: Russia must deal with Iran going forward: more below. China does not want to break with Iran in any fashion and is in fact responsible for Iran's acquisition of both nuclear and ballistic missile technology; China also does not have a coherent policy: China is a fickle, treacherous, hostile, brittle adversary.
4. The US faction is pushing hard for Chapter 7 in order to begin the sanctions process that is believed will weaken the Tehran regime. The EU 3 -- UK, Fr, and DR (Germany) -- do not want Chapter 7 sanctions that bite since it is believed this will trigger and oil crisis; however collectively they accept the fact that the Tehran regime believes it can bully the UNSC without consequences and therefore the UNSC must show a united front. The UK and FR position is voluble, agitated, informed and hardened. The German position is less harded but is useful because a number of German firms have dual use contracts with Iran, and therefore Germany represents a country that is prepared to suffer economic penalties in the event of sanctions against dual use technology.
5. The Russian position is sophisticated. No one on the UNSC has better intelligence sources inside Iran, inside the Tehran regime, inside the IRGC and Council of Elders, than the Russian military. The Russian intell is better than first rate and dwarfs whatever UK has with its nascent rebel faction in Khuzistan or what the US has with its tentacles through the Kurds into northwest Iran. The Russian intell is so good that the Russians have offered to assist in the event regime-change is required. The US faction rejects the Russian offer. Russia is frustrated and at the same time patient. Russia does not want a beggarly Iran. If the choice for Russia is between a nuclear tipped Iran and a beggarly Iran, Russia will choose the status quo. Russia needs Iran as a wedge between the Wahhabists in the Ummah and the oil-soaked Central Asian client states; also Russia knows that only Iran is capable of matching the connections the Wahhabists have with the Chechen martyrs. At the same time, Russia needs Iran as an ally in order to fend off the Chinese aim to consolidate its power across the Ummah.
6. The Chinese position at the UNSC is weak and inarticulate and partially out of date. The Chinese strategic policy since the 1980s and the fall of the Soviet empire has been that the US strategic power must be overwhelmed with hotspots. Hence the nuke and ballistic missile proliferation to North Korea and Pakistan; then to Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Libya. (The next phase of proliferation calls for Africa: Sudan, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, South Africa.) (Mention that Venezuela is now a fresh concern, along with Bolivia, Cuba, Peru, Mexico.) The Chinese strategic position favors proloferation like cancer because it obsolesces the US strategic power. This is the Jiang Zemin policy as designed and prosecuted by the PLA. The difficulty is the that PLA vision is now not the only policy at Bejing. The new policy is to cooperate with the Bejing custormers in order to keep the cash coming. China now speaks with two voices -- one that favors continuous proliferation, one that favors continuous profit. The proverb says that when the emperor speaks with two voices, China is week. Therefore: China is weak at the UNSC and depends upon the pressure of the US faction to direct its path.
7. The Tehran regime regards the UNSC as impotent. The regime holds that it can provoke the UNSC as much as it wants and still suffer no penalty. Tehran believes that neither Russia nor China will permit Chapter 7 sanctions without severe fracturing of the UNSC. Then again, at all times Tehran acts as if Russia and China may vote on precedural matters toward Chapter 7 in order to pressure Tehran to make concessions. Tehran believes that the opposition in the West to the US hegemony will splinter the UNSC. Tehran believes that it can prolong the UNSC debate through the summer months.
7a There is an alternative scenario that argues that Tehran means to drag out the UNSC debate into the indefinite future: this view believes that Tehran can play Russia off the US, that Tehran can play China off the US, that envy of the US can be used to slow and even wreck whatever agreement can be reached at the UNSC. This alternative scenario does not
8. The US position is to press the UNSC as heavily as possible through the next four to six weeks. This can look like at least two rounds of consultations with member governments. The US-UK-FR-DR coalition believes it can win nine votes at the UNSC and that Russia and China will not use the veto. Importantly, the US position does not ask for Chapter 7, Article 41 and 42; the US position asks for an array of sanctions against providing Iran with dual use nuclear and or ballistic technology. The US position is firm, focused, well-planned, extremely well-informed of the major players.
9. The US position will be strengthened by the negotiations in Nigeria with regard Sudan and the Darfur chaos. The Darfur crisis is a model of how the US can maneuver its coalition at the UNSC against the intransigence of Russia and China. China does not want sanctions against the Khartoum regime. At the same time China does not believe it can risk using its veto if the UNSC pushes for sanctions. Note that Sudan is on the Chinese strategic list for proliferation.
10. The United Nations Charter, Chapter 7, Article 42, is a potent weapon. The Tehran regime does not fear it. Tehran believes that the overwhelming force represented by the UNSC is satanic, and that the more powerful the UNSC adversary, the more Allah will provide. Tehran does not recognize what is understood as rational deterrence.
11. Emphasize that Tehran does not calculate rationally.
More soon (Next: United States War Plan S)
War Warning Part 5: Three Sections
Posted by on 5.7.06 @ 2:13AM
This is War Warning Part Five, in three sections.
Section 1: Tehran War Plan R.
1. The Tehran war plan has a code name that is unknown. For the purposes of this construction, it is Operation R.
2. The window for R remains September-October of 06, coterminous with Yom Kippur.
3. Tehran will tempt the US with provocations from now through the summer.
4. The major R provocation will resemble a surge of terror strikes from the witch's brew of terror gangs. The surge will be directed against sacred sites as well as strategic and civilian sites; the surge will include Israel, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and possibly Europe. Note that the Al Aqsa and Islamic Jihad gangs on the West Bank are working to show that they deserve to be part of the surge. Hamas is a junior partner. The tyro Zarqawi has proposed himself as a regional commander. Al Q is a full partner, though junior to HizbAllah.
5. R has two victory points. If the US does not respond to the surge, Tehran wins. If the US does respond, Tehran wins. The Tehran regime is supremely confident. Ayatollah Khamenei fuels the confidence, but the regime is not dependent upon one man. The regime is a counter-counter-revolution. The regime believes that it must strike now because the most young population is feral and disloyal.
6. Critical to understanding the Tehran regime's confidence in R is its radical Shiite theology. Ahmadinejad is a sincere messianic voice: he represents a monolithic, Mahdist, apocalyptic cadre in the IRGC leadership. The inspiration for these Mahdists is not Ayatollah Khamenei but rather is a shadowy ayatollah who was long in Germany before the revolution: what is most critical about this most radical and treasured ayatollah is that he has declared that it is legitimate to use nuclear weapons to advance the revolution.
7. For a thousand years, Shiites have been the practical, coherent, accomodating minority in Islam, forced by the persecution of the Sunni majority to find expedient solutions to threats. What is new and profound is that the present Tehran regime is committed to a confrontation with what it believes is satanic forces. The Tehran regime believes that democracy is the work of Satan. The Tehran regime believes that the United States is a demon that it calls World Arrogance. The Tehran regime believes (Ahmadinejad especially) that the chaos and ruin that will follow nuclear exchange will at the same time prepare the entry of the 12th (Invisible) Imam and the delivery of the faithful to paradise on Earth.
7a. The distinction made by some voluble commentators in the EU that there is a division between Ahmadinejad (and his IRGC allies) and the wiseman voice of the old crocodile Rafsinjani and the young crocodile Larijani is a false note. Rafsanjani has just comleted an embassy from Damascus to Kuwait City in which he informed the sheepish Gulf emirs that in the event of air strikes, anyone who aids the US will be burned. National Security Council adviser Larijani is a servant of the Council of Elders. In the event of crisis, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei endorses the necessity of nuclear launch: twice in the last two yars, Khamenei has provided his signature of the launch codes during war exercises.
8. Operatation R includes conventional and nuclear components. In the event of a US strike, Iran will respond with conventional and nuclear weapons. (The regime has nuclear warheads that it purchased from the Soviet stockpiles in the early 90s.) R will strike at the Arabian oilfields and Israel: a version of the war plan has been published in the Saudi Arabian press, with the caveat that it calls for suicide strikes on all Gulf states that support the US: the shahid detail is theological language and not strategic: the IRGC has sufficient Shahab missiles and other hardware to launch a decapitating strike on the critical oilfield nodes: also Plan R calls for a nuclear tipped strike in the event that the US strikes and assaults become untenable.) R calls for the destruction of at least one US carrier battle group. The Tehran regime believes it will survive the US strikes in deep and hard sites. The Tehran regime believes that the very disequilibrium of the contest -- the overwhelming US force compare to the IRGC force -- is demonstration of its imminent success. The Tehran regime believes that Allah will provide the fate that is required to defeat the US strikes.
9. R holds that the UN or other non combatant agents (EU, NATO) will intervene after the first round of strikes, and that the ceasefire will prevent the US from consolidating its advantages with combat ground units. Tehran believes the ceasefire through the winter months will turn into a truce that will leave Iran the regional hegemon and the US in retreat.
10. The Tehran regime believes that the humilation and disintegration of the US democracy is imminent. The Tehran regime believes that Satan will perish at the end of days. The Tehran regime believes in the Day of Judgement.
More soon: (Next: United Nations Security Council Plan)
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- Mission Implausible
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
